A generative probabilistic framework for learning spatial language

The language of space and spatial relations is a rich source of abstract semantic structure. We develop a probabilistic model that learns to understand utterances that describe spatial configurations of objects in a tabletop scene by seeking the meaning that best explains the sentence chosen. The inference problem is simplified by assuming that sentences express symbolic representations of (latent) semantic relations between referents and landmarks in space, and that given these symbolic representations, utterances and physical locations are conditionally independent. As such, the inference problem factors into a symbol-grounding component (linking propositions to physical locations) and a symbol-translation component (linking propositions to parse trees). We evaluate the model by eliciting production and comprehension data from human English speakers and find that our system recovers the referent of spatial utterances at a level of proficiency approaching human performance.

[1]  Beate Hamp,et al.  The Fundamental System of Spatial Schemas in Language , 2022 .

[2]  Annette Herskovits Language and Spatial Cognition: An Interdisciplinary Study of the Prepositions in English , 2009 .

[3]  Eugene Charniak,et al.  A Maximum-Entropy-Inspired Parser , 2000, ANLP.

[4]  Matthew R. Walter,et al.  Approaching the Symbol Grounding Problem with Probabilistic Graphical Models , 2011, AI Mag..

[5]  Michael Spranger The co-evolution of basic spatial terms and categories , 2012 .

[6]  Laura A. Carlson,et al.  Grounding spatial language in perception: an empirical and computational investigation. , 2001, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[7]  Thora Tenbrink,et al.  A linguistic ontology of space for natural language processing , 2010, Artif. Intell..

[8]  Luke S. Zettlemoyer,et al.  A Joint Model of Language and Perception for Grounded Attribute Learning , 2012, ICML.

[9]  Leonard Talmy The representation of spatial structure in spoken and signed language , 2004 .

[10]  Vyvyan Evans,et al.  The Semantics of English Prepositions: Spatial Scenes, Embodied Meaning, and Cognition , 2003 .

[11]  Ingrid Zukerman,et al.  A Probabilistic Model for Understanding Composite Spoken Descriptions , 2008, PRICAI.

[12]  Deb Roy,et al.  Grounded Semantic Composition for Visual Scenes , 2011, J. Artif. Intell. Res..

[13]  N. Presmeg The body in the mind: The bodily basis of meaning, imagination and reason , 1992 .

[14]  Orin Hargraves,et al.  SemEval-2007 Task 06: Word-Sense Disambiguation of Prepositions , 2007, *SEMEVAL.

[15]  Leonard Talmy,et al.  The fundamental system of spatial schemas in language , 2005 .

[16]  Kenneth C. Litkowski,et al.  Coverage and Inheritance in The Preposition Project , 2006, ACL 2006.

[17]  George Lakoff,et al.  Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things , 1987 .

[18]  Roger Levy,et al.  Tregex and Tsurgeon: tools for querying and manipulating tree data structures , 2006, LREC.

[19]  Timothy Baldwin,et al.  Prepositions in Applications: A Survey and Introduction to the Special Issue , 2009, CL.

[20]  Noah D. Goodman,et al.  A Bayesian Model of the Acquisition of Compositional Semantics , 2008 .

[21]  Michael Spranger,et al.  Open-ended semantics co-evolving with spatial language , 2010 .

[22]  Terry Regier,et al.  The Human Semantic Potential: Spatial Language and Constrained Connectionism , 1996 .

[23]  Ken Litkowski,et al.  The Preposition Project , 2021, ArXiv.